Jacob Dale Annotation #4, 11/02/10
Erin Brockovich
1. Title, director and release year?
The film Erin Brockovich was released in the year 2000 and was directed by Steven Soderbergh.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The movie starts off with Erin Brockovich being an unemployed single mother of three children. She recently was involved in a car crash and had Attorney Masry represent her. Erin did not win the case, and she was rather desperate to find work. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie happens shortly after when Erin goes to Attorney Masry’s office begging for work. She comes into the office with very revealing clothes and everyone in the office gives her awkward looks. Erin is very loud and often swears. She has a real presence to her. Attorney Masry finally agrees to give Erin work as a clerk in the office. During her work, she runs into some medical records surrounding files associated with a woman named Donna Jensen. These files states that PG&E wanted to purchase the home of Mrs. Jensen. Further research leads Erin to find that this land was contaminated with chromium. Erin doesn’t like what she finds, and she believes it’s quite a fishy situation that PG&E offered to buy the home of Mrs. Jensen.
The more and more she digs into it, Erin discovers that PG&E covered up the poisoning of almost the entire town of Hinkley California. The chromium chemical leaked into their water supply. After talking with many of the residents, she finds that a lot of them have terminal illnesses. Erin vows to bring justice to these people. Ms. Brockovich then tries to get Mr. Masry to take on a case against PG&E, but he is reluctant since his office is small and PG&E is just so large and powerful. He is eventually persuaded by Erin. Erin gets a really lucky break in the case when she ends up meeting a man at a bar that states he destroyed records for PG&E of the water contamination. Erin gets luckier when she obtains a document from the local water board that contains a conversation of an executive acknowledging he knew of the contamination. This coupled with persuasive interviews of residents is enough for Erin and Attorney Masry to award 634 residents of the town of Hinkley with $333 million to be spread amongst them. The film brings home the message of a powerful corporation covering up environmental devastation and human illness as a result of its practices to continue its operations.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film brings out the size and power of a corporation, the legal system, and harmful operational activities as sustainability issues. PG&E is so large and powerful that it keeps its employees from coming forward about it causing water contamination in California. It also flaunts its money around in attempt to silence the victims of the contamination by offering to buy their homes. PG&E was well aware of the magnitude of the situation, but it still tried to hide what was going on by getting rid of records it was legally required to keep. It tried to circumvent ethics and the law in order to continue to bring in big profits and thwart anything in its way of jeopardizing this. The very nature that PG&E operates is also a sustainability issue. The company released chromium into the water supply of Hinkley, California through its operations. PG&E is just an example of many companies that let harmful byproducts into the environment while conducting their operations. Not only did this effect the environment through pollution, it also caused terminal cancer to plague the residents of Hinkley, California. Finally, the legal system is a sustainability problem itself. In order to have a good case, many records and documents are needed. In cases such as this, the corporation often gets rid of most of the pertinent documents. This makes it quite hard for the small guy to win a battle David versus Goliath style.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling parts of the movie for me were Erin using her in-your-face personality to achieve results. She was perseverant and relentless at times. She used her looks to get a water board employee to allow her access to several key documents that showed PG&E clearly knew that they contaminated Hinkley’s water supply. This was crucial to winning the case. Despite not being a lawyer, Erin used everything at her disposal to succeed. The most compelling part of the movie was the scene in which several PG&E executives met with her and Attorney Masry. Erin told the executives that she had water brought in for them from the site of the contamination. She told the executives to drink up and not one of them would drink the water. They all exchanged looks of fear and astonishment. This scene really magnified how horrific the contamination was. If even the executives would not drink the water, there truly was a problem with the water supply in the town.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I’m a little unconvinced that Erin Brockovich could waltz right into the water board of the town and just charm her way into the office and have a good look around. Even though the attendant let her in like that, wouldn’t there at least be some security footage? I believe the court would question the manner in which she obtained all this incriminating evidence against PG&E. Another unconvincing portion of the movie for me is the case going to trial itself. Going to trial is costly; I just don’t see how a small firm could take on a big corporation like this. Most cases usually never go to trial, and if the evidence was so overwhelming PG&E would have settled out of court.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film definitely addresses a mature audience since it is rated “R”. The film has a lot foul language and elements of sexuality. It is a drama that is supposed to entice the viewer with its star, Julia Roberts. It isn’t a documentary that is supposed to educate. The film was meant to entertain people in a witty, humorous, and emotional fashion. Julia Robert plays Erin Brockovich and is rather loud-mouthed and rather flirtatious. Although this film contains a powerful environmental story that affected many residents of a small town in California, it is still a Hollywood film.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
To add more education value, the film could have gone into more detail about the chemical chromium. Sure it causes cancer, but how did it exactly get into the water source of the town? Was it due to its concentration or was any amount of chromium in the water dangerous? Did PG&E physically harm the environment in any way other than polluting the water supply? Does PG&E still practice these operational tactics? Finally, I would have included similar cases to what PG&E did to show the viewer that there are more problems like this plaguing America that need to be stopped.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film showcases legal action as intervention. Unfortunately, suing a large corporation is no easy task. Only large law firms are normally capable of undergoing such a large task like this. A better solution would be to push for more government regulation against large corporations. Perhaps corporations with energy related services should have routine visits by government agency employees to monitor the situation at plants and keep extensive records. I would also like to see continuous monitoring of the area where the corporation’s plants are located for any hints of chemical contamination or extensive pollution. This would require major legislation. Fixing the legal system needs to happen as well. So much proof is required to make corporations accountable for harmful activities. A system should be created that requires less proof if residents are clearly sick from contamination of a chemical that the corporation produces. It’s definitely more than just a coincidence.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film compelled me to find out if there were certain aspects of the film that really did not happen and what Erin Brockovich is currently doing. It turns out that the PG&E case never made it to court. It was actually settled out of court. The situation was settled by private arbitration. Many of the residents of Hinkley received small settlements nowhere in the magnitude described in the film. Some of the residents even complained of attorneys keeping their money for 6 months after the money was awarded. The residents never received interest for this. The residents received varying amounts of money with little or no logic behind it. Some residents even went as far as suing Erin’s law firm because they were unhappy with the outcome. Other complained that the arbitrators didn’t even look at the medical records. So, it turns out the situation did not end as well as it was pictured in the movie.
Currently, Erin is the president of Bockovich Research & Consulting. Her consulting company is involved in many environmental projects around the world. She is often requested to speak at events and she travels the world to do it. Erin Brockovich has pretty much become a household name.
Annotation #4, 11/02/10
Erin Brockovich
1. Title, director and release year?
The film Erin Brockovich was released in the year 2000 and was directed by Steven Soderbergh.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The movie starts off with Erin Brockovich being an unemployed single mother of three children. She recently was involved in a car crash and had Attorney Masry represent her. Erin did not win the case, and she was rather desperate to find work. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie happens shortly after when Erin goes to Attorney Masry’s office begging for work. She comes into the office with very revealing clothes and everyone in the office gives her awkward looks. Erin is very loud and often swears. She has a real presence to her. Attorney Masry finally agrees to give Erin work as a clerk in the office. During her work, she runs into some medical records surrounding files associated with a woman named Donna Jensen. These files states that PG&E wanted to purchase the home of Mrs. Jensen. Further research leads Erin to find that this land was contaminated with chromium. Erin doesn’t like what she finds, and she believes it’s quite a fishy situation that PG&E offered to buy the home of Mrs. Jensen.
The more and more she digs into it, Erin discovers that PG&E covered up the poisoning of almost the entire town of Hinkley California. The chromium chemical leaked into their water supply. After talking with many of the residents, she finds that a lot of them have terminal illnesses. Erin vows to bring justice to these people. Ms. Brockovich then tries to get Mr. Masry to take on a case against PG&E, but he is reluctant since his office is small and PG&E is just so large and powerful. He is eventually persuaded by Erin. Erin gets a really lucky break in the case when she ends up meeting a man at a bar that states he destroyed records for PG&E of the water contamination. Erin gets luckier when she obtains a document from the local water board that contains a conversation of an executive acknowledging he knew of the contamination. This coupled with persuasive interviews of residents is enough for Erin and Attorney Masry to award 634 residents of the town of Hinkley with $333 million to be spread amongst them. The film brings home the message of a powerful corporation covering up environmental devastation and human illness as a result of its practices to continue its operations.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film brings out the size and power of a corporation, the legal system, and harmful operational activities as sustainability issues. PG&E is so large and powerful that it keeps its employees from coming forward about it causing water contamination in California. It also flaunts its money around in attempt to silence the victims of the contamination by offering to buy their homes. PG&E was well aware of the magnitude of the situation, but it still tried to hide what was going on by getting rid of records it was legally required to keep. It tried to circumvent ethics and the law in order to continue to bring in big profits and thwart anything in its way of jeopardizing this. The very nature that PG&E operates is also a sustainability issue. The company released chromium into the water supply of Hinkley, California through its operations. PG&E is just an example of many companies that let harmful byproducts into the environment while conducting their operations. Not only did this effect the environment through pollution, it also caused terminal cancer to plague the residents of Hinkley, California. Finally, the legal system is a sustainability problem itself. In order to have a good case, many records and documents are needed. In cases such as this, the corporation often gets rid of most of the pertinent documents. This makes it quite hard for the small guy to win a battle David versus Goliath style.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling parts of the movie for me were Erin using her in-your-face personality to achieve results. She was perseverant and relentless at times. She used her looks to get a water board employee to allow her access to several key documents that showed PG&E clearly knew that they contaminated Hinkley’s water supply. This was crucial to winning the case. Despite not being a lawyer, Erin used everything at her disposal to succeed. The most compelling part of the movie was the scene in which several PG&E executives met with her and Attorney Masry. Erin told the executives that she had water brought in for them from the site of the contamination. She told the executives to drink up and not one of them would drink the water. They all exchanged looks of fear and astonishment. This scene really magnified how horrific the contamination was. If even the executives would not drink the water, there truly was a problem with the water supply in the town.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I’m a little unconvinced that Erin Brockovich could waltz right into the water board of the town and just charm her way into the office and have a good look around. Even though the attendant let her in like that, wouldn’t there at least be some security footage? I believe the court would question the manner in which she obtained all this incriminating evidence against PG&E. Another unconvincing portion of the movie for me is the case going to trial itself. Going to trial is costly; I just don’t see how a small firm could take on a big corporation like this. Most cases usually never go to trial, and if the evidence was so overwhelming PG&E would have settled out of court.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film definitely addresses a mature audience since it is rated “R”. The film has a lot foul language and elements of sexuality. It is a drama that is supposed to entice the viewer with its star, Julia Roberts. It isn’t a documentary that is supposed to educate. The film was meant to entertain people in a witty, humorous, and emotional fashion. Julia Robert plays Erin Brockovich and is rather loud-mouthed and rather flirtatious. Although this film contains a powerful environmental story that affected many residents of a small town in California, it is still a Hollywood film.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
To add more education value, the film could have gone into more detail about the chemical chromium. Sure it causes cancer, but how did it exactly get into the water source of the town? Was it due to its concentration or was any amount of chromium in the water dangerous? Did PG&E physically harm the environment in any way other than polluting the water supply? Does PG&E still practice these operational tactics? Finally, I would have included similar cases to what PG&E did to show the viewer that there are more problems like this plaguing America that need to be stopped.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film showcases legal action as intervention. Unfortunately, suing a large corporation is no easy task. Only large law firms are normally capable of undergoing such a large task like this. A better solution would be to push for more government regulation against large corporations. Perhaps corporations with energy related services should have routine visits by government agency employees to monitor the situation at plants and keep extensive records. I would also like to see continuous monitoring of the area where the corporation’s plants are located for any hints of chemical contamination or extensive pollution. This would require major legislation. Fixing the legal system needs to happen as well. So much proof is required to make corporations accountable for harmful activities. A system should be created that requires less proof if residents are clearly sick from contamination of a chemical that the corporation produces. It’s definitely more than just a coincidence.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film compelled me to find out if there were certain aspects of the film that really did not happen and what Erin Brockovich is currently doing. It turns out that the PG&E case never made it to court. It was actually settled out of court. The situation was settled by private arbitration. Many of the residents of Hinkley received small settlements nowhere in the magnitude described in the film. Some of the residents even complained of attorneys keeping their money for 6 months after the money was awarded. The residents never received interest for this. The residents received varying amounts of money with little or no logic behind it. Some residents even went as far as suing Erin’s law firm because they were unhappy with the outcome. Other complained that the arbitrators didn’t even look at the medical records. So, it turns out the situation did not end as well as it was pictured in the movie.
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2000/04/14/sharp
Currently, Erin is the president of Bockovich Research & Consulting. Her consulting company is involved in many environmental projects around the world. She is often requested to speak at events and she travels the world to do it. Erin Brockovich has pretty much become a household name.
http://www.brockovich.com/mystory.html